Book contents
- Beyond Bad Apples
- Beyond Bad Apples
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I Risk Culture Conceptual Underpinnings
- 1 Individual Agency and Collective Patterns of Action
- 2 Risk Culture and Information Culture
- 3 A Network View of Tone at the Top and the Role of Opinion Leaders
- 4 Rethinking Risk Management Cultures in Organisations
- Part II A View of Risk Culture Concepts in Firms and Society
- Conclusion
- Index
- References
4 - Rethinking Risk Management Cultures in Organisations
Insights from Innovation
from Part I - Risk Culture Conceptual Underpinnings
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 May 2020
Book contents
- Beyond Bad Apples
- Beyond Bad Apples
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I Risk Culture Conceptual Underpinnings
- 1 Individual Agency and Collective Patterns of Action
- 2 Risk Culture and Information Culture
- 3 A Network View of Tone at the Top and the Role of Opinion Leaders
- 4 Rethinking Risk Management Cultures in Organisations
- Part II A View of Risk Culture Concepts in Firms and Society
- Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
As innovation entails risk, it seems only natural that risk management practises should be the core enablers of innovation within companies. Yet, the risk management function is often portrayed as the innovation “killer" in organisations. In this chapter we shed light onto this innovation and risk management jigsaw puzzle. We summarise the innovation typologies found in the literature to two broad approaches by which companies attempt to innovate: undertaking incremental or radical innovation efforts. The former seeks to introduce changes that lie close to the current offerings and processes of an organisation; the latter aims to pursue objectives that lie more distant to the current organisational undertakings. We posit that risk management practises should be aligned with the type of innovation companies pursue, and question whether it is this misalignment that might explain the original puzzle. We argue that traditional risk management approaches cope well with incremental innovation. But radical innovation requires a different risk management approach. We conclude with a novel framework for risk management suitable for radical innovation and discuss the managerial implications.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Beyond Bad ApplesRisk Culture in Business, pp. 103 - 138Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Abramovitz, M. (1956). Resource and output trends in the United States since 1870. American Economic Review, 46, 5–23.Google Scholar
Aghion, P. and Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60(2), 323–51.Google Scholar
Baldwin, C. Y. and Clark, K. B. (1997). Managing in an age of modularity. Harvard Business Review, 75(5), 84–93.Google Scholar
Bendoly, E. and Chao, R. O. (2016). How excessive stage time reduction in NPD negatively impacts market value. Production and Operations Management, 25(5), 812–32.Google Scholar
Black, F. and Scholes, M. (1973). The pricing of options and corporate liabilities. Journal of Political Economy, 81(3), 637–54.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67(6), 380.Google Scholar
Chandrasekaran, A., Linderman, K. and Schroeder, R. (2015). The role of project and organizational context in managing high-tech R&D projects. Production and Operations Management, 24(4), 560–86.Google Scholar
Chandy, R. K. and Prabhu, J. C. (2011). Innovation typologies. In Bayus, B., ed., Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 96–100.Google Scholar
Chao, R. and Kavadias, S. (2008). A theoretical framework for managing the new product development portfolio: when and how to use strategic buckets. Management Science, 54(5), 907–21.Google Scholar
Chao, R. and Lenox, M. (2018). Towards a unified model of innovation and technological change. Journal of Enterprise Transformation. https://doi.org/10.1080/19488289.2018.1424060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chao, R. and Loutskina, E. (2011). How complexity impacts R&D portfolio decisions and technological search distance. SSRN Electronic Journal. Darden School of Business Working Paper. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1917607Google Scholar
Christensen, C. (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Christensen, C. and Raynor, M. (2013). The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar
Clark, K. and Fujimoto, T. (1991). Product Development Performance: Strategy, Organization, and Management in the World Auto Industry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, W. M. and Klepper, S. (1996). Firm size and the nature of innovation within industries: the case of process and product R&D. Review of Economics and Statistics, 78(2), 232–43.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. G. (1990). Stage-gate systems: a new tool for managing new products. Business Horizons, 33(3), 44–54.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. G. (1994). New products: the factors that drive success. International Marketing Review, 11(1), 60–76.Google Scholar
De Meyer, A. C. L., Loch, C. H. and Pich, M. T. (2002). Managing project uncertainty: from variation to chaos. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(2), 60.Google Scholar
Dillon, K. and Lafley, A. (2011). I think of my failures as a gift. Harvard Business Review, 89(4), 86–9.Google Scholar
Dixit, A. (1993). Choosing among alternative discrete investment projects under uncertainty. Economics Letters, 41(3), 265–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ettlie, J. E., Bridges, W. P. and O’Keefe, R. D. (1984). Organization strategy and structural differences for radical versus incremental innovation. Management Science, 30(6), 682–95.Google Scholar
He, Z.-L. and Wong, P.-K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–94.Google Scholar
Henderson, R. M. and Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9–30.Google Scholar
Hermalin, B. E. (2012). Leadership and corporate culture. In Gibbons, R. S. and Roberts, J., eds., The Handbook of Organizational Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 432–78.Google Scholar
Huchzermeier, A. and Loch, C. H. (2001). Project management under risk: using the real options approach to evaluate flexibility in R&D. Management Science, 47(1), 85–101.Google Scholar
Kavadias, S. and Chao, R. (2007). Resource allocation and new product development portfolio management. In Loch, C. H. and Kavadias, S., eds., Handbook of New Product Development Management. London: Routledge, pp. 135–63.Google Scholar
Kavadias, S., Ladas, K. and Loch, C. (2016). The transformative business model. Harvard Business Review, 94(10), 91–8.Google Scholar
Kendrick, J. (1956). Productivity Trends: Capital and Labor. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research, pp. 3–23.Google Scholar
Koetzier, W. and Alon, A. (2013). Why ‘low risk’ innovation is costly. Accenture. https://bit.ly/36ueW0IGoogle Scholar
Kogut, B. and Kulatilaka, N. (2001). Capabilities as real options. Organization Science, 12(6), 744–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovach, J. and Kavadias, S. (2014). Focused or flexible targets? How organizational design influences the definition of success for strategic initiatives. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2444444Google Scholar
Krishnan, V., Eppinger, S. D. and Whitney, D. E. (1997). A model-based framework to overlap product development activities. Management Science, 43(4), 437–51.Google Scholar
Kulatilaka, N. and Trigeorgis, L. (2004). The general flexibility to switch: Real options revisited. In Schwarz, E. and Trigeorgis, L., eds., Real Options and Investment under Uncertainty: Classical Readings and Recent Contributions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 179–98.Google Scholar
Levinthal, D. and March, J. G. (1981). A model of adaptive organizational search. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2(4), 307–33.Google Scholar
Levinthal, D. A. and March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 95–112.Google Scholar
Loch, C., DeMeyer, A. and Pich, M. T. (2006). Managing the Unknown: A New Approach to Managing High Uncertainty and Risks in Projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Loch, C. and Kavadias, S. (2008). Handbook of New Product Development Management. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Loch, C. and Sommer, S. (2005). Vol de nuit: the dream of flying car at Lemond Automobiles SA. INSEAD Case Study.Google Scholar
Loch, C. H., Terwiesch, C. and Thomke, S. (2001). Parallel and sequential testing of design alternatives. Management Science, 47(5), 663–78.Google Scholar
Luehrman, T. A. (1998). Strategy as a portfolio of real options. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 89–101.Google ScholarPubMed
Markou, P., Kavadias, S. and Oraiopoulos, N. (2018). Project selection and success: Insights from the drug discovery process. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3225056.Google Scholar
McCormack, K. P. and Johnson, W. C. (2001). Business Process Orientation: Gaining the E-business Competitive Advantage. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Newell, A. and Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Pennetier, C., Girotra, K. and Mihm, J. (2018). R&D spending: dynamic or persistent? Working Paper.Google Scholar
Pich, M. T., Loch, C. H. and De Meyer, A. (2002). On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in project management. Management Science, 48(8), 1008–23.Google Scholar
Pindyck, R. S. (1993). A note on competitive investment under uncertainty. The American Economic Review, 83(1), 273–7.Google Scholar
Rice, M. P., O’Connor, G. C. and Pierantozzi, R. (2008). Implementing a learning plan to counter project uncertainty. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(2), 54.Google Scholar
Ries, E. (2011). The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses. New York: Crown Books.Google Scholar
Roberts, K. and Weitzman, M. L. (1981). Funding criteria for research, development, and exploration projects. Econometrica, 49(5), 1261–88.Google Scholar
Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 71–102.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, N. (2006). Innovation and economic growth. In Innovation and Growth in Tourism. Paris: OECD, pp. 43–52.Google Scholar
Santiago, L. P. and Vakili, P. (2005). On the value of flexibility in R&D projects. Management Science, 51(8), 1206–18.Google Scholar
Sawhney, M., Wolcott, R. C. and Arroniz, I. (2006). The 12 different ways for companies to innovate. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(3), 75.Google Scholar
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.Google Scholar
Schoemaker, P. J. (1995). Scenario planning: a tool for strategic thinking. Sloan Management Review, 36(2), 25–50.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process, vol. 1. New York: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1998). Donald Campbell’s model of the creative process: creativity as blind variation and selective retention. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 32(3), 153–8.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1999). Origins of Genius: Darwinian Perspectives on Creativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Solow, R. M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65–94.Google Scholar
Sommer, A. F., Hedegaard, C., Dukovska-Popovska, I. and Steger-Jensen, K. (2015). Improved product development performance through agile/stage-gate hybrids: the next-generation stage-gate process? Research–Technology Management, 58(1), 34–45.Google Scholar
Terwiesch, C. and Loch, C. H. (1999). Measuring the effectiveness of overlapping development activities. Management Science, 45(4), 455–65.Google Scholar
Thomke, S. (1998). Managing experimentation in the design of new products. Management Science, 44(6), 743–62.Google Scholar
Thomke, S. and Nimgade, A. (2000). IDEO Product Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Thomke, S. H. (1995). The economics of experimentation in the design of new products and processes. Unpublished PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Trigeorgis, L. (1996). Real Options: Managerial Flexibility and Strategy in Resource Allocation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tushman, M. L. and Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 439–65.Google Scholar
Tushman, M. L. and O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–29.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–31.Google Scholar
Utterback, J. M. (1994). Radical innovation and corporate regeneration. Research-Technology Management, 37(4), 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Utterback, J. M. and Abernathy, W. J. (1975). A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega, 3(6), 639–56.Google Scholar
Valiant, L. (2013). Probably Approximately Correct: Nature’s Algorithms for Learning and Prospering in a Complex World. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Van den Steen, E. (2010). On the origin of shared beliefs (and corporate culture). The RAND Journal of Economics, 41(4), 617–48.Google Scholar
Wheelwright, S. C. and Clark, K. B. (1992). Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency, and Quality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Wideman, R. M. (1992). Project and Program Risk Management: A Guide to Managing Project Risks and Opportunities. Drexel Hill, PA: Project Management Institute.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by